Day one: The bumbling blagger David Davis concedes the first major and important UK negotiating point, agreeing to wait until after the terms of the 'divorce' are agreed before discussing a new trade arrangement. 1-0 to Barnier.

I don't envy his job... Whatever he gets, it will fail to satisfy pretty much everyone. Doomed to failure...perhaps we should simply let Farage, Boris and Gove do the negotiations - we're going to lose, anyway.

Don't know why the government didn't create a cross-party team, or even bring in non-government people. Keir Starmer would be the best negotiator in Parliament and there will be top mediators and lawyers out their. May and Davis etc could still draft the negotiation stance and red lines, and brief more competent people to do the negotiations. That's what the EU did, coming up with policy and strategy and then giving a briefing pack to Barnier to negotiate.

It's hard to be specific as if I were to go in to every area I'd want to, this would become an essay.

So broadly speaking, success would be a more prosperous economy, which is outward looking and open thanks to free trade and supported by immigration policies that allow us to recruit the skilled from abroad, rather than accepting the masses. A society with greater democratic control and a populous with a greater sense of socio-economic control over their destiny, with increased social mobility and reducing the sense that the benefits of the EU have bypassed many. A society that invests in its people and pays its public and private sector a good living wage, rather than recruiting cheap foreign labour to undercut its native workforce.

A failure would be a foot still in the door, pandering to EU demands in order to cling on to some semblance of a trade agreement, whilst affording EU citizens greater rights than UK citizens in the EU may receive.

It will take decades to truly see whether a deal is a success or failure. Though we could all list various media outlets and their assessments now, given how predictably biased media in this country is.

Fair pay and opportunity for all. Jeremy Corbyn could not have said it better himself. Good lad.

It's easy to promise the world when you don't have to deliver it. Jezza's manifesto, whilst promising in places, was and continues to be financially unrealistic.

We all know politicians over promise, but I take exception with him when tens of thousands of the oppressed proletarian (white middle class millennials) are worshiping him like a diety at Glastonbury, berating society for failing to elect their new messiah. Still - I'm sure they supported Jezza before you or I had even heard of him...just don't mention Hamas, Hezbollah or the IRA, or the fact he failed to attend any armed force events on Armed Forces Day.

If I become PM one day RCS, I'll give you a trillion quid and the keys to Whaddon Road. Scout's honour.

Fair pay and opportunity for all. Jeremy Corbyn could not have said it better himself. Good lad.

It's easy to promise the world when you don't have to deliver it. Jezza's manifesto, whilst promising in places, was and continues to be financially unrealistic.

We all know politicians over promise, but I take exception with him when tens of thousands of the oppressed proletarian (white middle class millennials) are worshiping him like a diety at Glastonbury, berating society for failing to elect their new messiah. Still - I'm sure they supported Jezza before you or I had even heard of him...just don't mention Hamas, Hezbollah or the IRA, or the fact he failed to attend any armed force events on Armed Forces Day.

If I become PM one day RCS, I'll give you a trillion quid and the keys to Whaddon Road. Scout's honour.

Lol. It was hardly promising the world, just a few percentage point tweaks to tax and spend.

As for your quote:

"increased social mobility and reducing the sense that the benefits of the EU have bypassed many. A society that invests in its people and pays its public and private sector a good living wage, rather than recruiting cheap foreign labour to undercut its native workforce."

You're right....let's just ignore re-nationalising the energy sector, water sector, mail sector and the rail sector, whilst also abolishing tuition fees and providing grants. That's just a drop in the ocean, right?

Social mobility linked spending (public sector pay, work/welfare/pensions, health and social care, education) account to just under what it would cost to re-nationalise National Grid, which has a market cap of £40bn presently. Let alone Royal Mail (£4.3bn), various energy firms (£60bn), water companies (£70bn) Albeit I use the huge caveat that i'm basing than on Labour's own figures for social mobility linked spending.

You're right....let's just ignore re-nationalising the energy sector, water sector, mail sector and the rail sector, whilst also abolishing tuition fees and providing grants. That's just a drop in the ocean, right?

But those utilities earn money when people buy energy and water. Thames water itself earned £350m odd profit in the last reporting year. Even if only half of that is re-invested in a better service or cheaper bills, the money is made back.

I was about to mention that re-nationalising those utilities and transport should have a net cost fairly close to zero - but abolishing tuition fees and cancelling existing student debts most definitely *does* come with a high cost.

An interesting read on that point from The Economist. It's not really a black and white case of it paying for itself.

Not to mention, the Labour manifesto and spending pledges would almost certainly push interest rates up, meaning the cost of servicing the UK's debt (increasing under Labour) would become more onerous on the public purse.

An interesting read on that point from The Economist. It's not really a black and white case of it paying for itself.

Not to mention, the Labour manifesto and spending pledges would almost certainly push interest rates up, meaning the cost of servicing the UK's debt (increasing under Labour) would become more onerous on the public purse.

Interesting, though the Economist's assumption "that back under state control investment would dry up and productivity would stagnate" - there is no contemporary evidence or data. Yes in the 70's and 80's it was not working, but nothing to say it won't now. In fact, the recent East Coast Mainline was in state control between the collapse of National Express and selling the franchise to Virgin/Stagecoach, and during that time, it was the ONLY franchise to contribute to the treasury more than it took in subsidies. (The issue of tax payer subsidies funding rail company dividends is a whole different argument, and my ultra-pro-free market stance is why I am against the railway franchise model).

As for interest rates and debt; again not clear. The debt has increased since 2010. My argument is that austerity and cuts reduces demand from the economy and slows down growth and income, making it harder to reduce debt as a share of GDP. Whereas I believe Labour's manifesto would stimulate demand and growth, so even if spending went up, as a proportion of GDP debt would go down; which is the key measure.

Plus, when you take into account that the majority of benefits go to people in work rather than those out of work, measures like a proper living wage and policy to reduce living costs (nationalisation of human rights like water and more affordable housing) will reduce the need for in-work benefits and reduce spending that way. I think reducing the number of people who need benefits (Labour policy) is a more effective way to reduce welfare spending than having the same number of people needing benefits but cutting how much you give them (Conservative policy).

As a business owner, I'd love to know where we'd find the money to pay teenagers £10 an hour. It's ok for him to say these things and wanting to raise corporation tax but the less money left in the accounts at the end of the year the more likely a company could go bust if there's a tough year.

I think the problem is he's assuming all companies rakenin the cash and dish it out as salary etc. to the directors. However that's not always the case and with all the extra red tape and taxes it's not a surprise if businesses close, and then you've lost a business paying taxes and employees are redundant.

It's a great burden to force on to small and medium businesses, there would have to be strong tax reduction incentives to make it work-able for someone like you, I imagine?

Indeed, Labour were explicit many times about providing rate relief and corporation tax relief to support SMEs in adapting.

I view it as this: reducing taxes but increasing wages sees money going straight from employers to employees, rather than first going to the state (taxes) and then to employees (wage top-up benefits). I think that is better all round.

I'd actually remove business rates for premises below a certain size, and have two levels of corp tax of 0% for SMEs and 10% for firms over 250 employees - the majority of UK workers are in SMEs and they are the bedrock of our economy. For this reason, the free-marketeer in me has only limited sympathy for some small businesses. If a business can't afford to pay a living wage, then frankly, let it die and another one start in it's place. Business churn (deaths and births) is a sign of a vibrant economy. Successful profitable enterprises do well, and loss-making ones don't - that is the free-market!

The small firm I worked for went bust in February having become stagnant, and two weeks later I started at another small firm which is growing due to innovative business models. That's business.

reducing taxes but increasing wages sees money going straight from employers to employees, rather than first going to the state (taxes) and then to employees (wage top-up benefits). I think that is better all round.

Won't that cause a inflation to increase dramatically? Asking because I don't know the answer to that - but it strikes me as a distinct possibility.

RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:

two levels of corp tax of 0% for SMEs and 10% for firms over 250 employees

Legal problems and loopholes abound due to the definition of an 'employee'. How many direct employees do Uber have, for example? Or any of a multitude of delivery firms?

I'm genuinely interested and seriously thinking of doing an OU degree in Economics purely for my own interest when I take early retirement.

reducing taxes but increasing wages sees money going straight from employers to employees, rather than first going to the state (taxes) and then to employees (wage top-up benefits). I think that is better all round.

Won't that cause a inflation to increase dramatically? Asking because I don't know the answer to that - but it strikes me as a distinct possibility.

RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:

two levels of corp tax of 0% for SMEs and 10% for firms over 250 employees

Legal problems and loopholes abound due to the definition of an 'employee'. How many direct employees do Uber have, for example? Or any of a multitude of delivery firms?

I'm genuinely interested and seriously thinking of doing an OU degree in Economics purely for my own interest when I take early retirement.

Inflation; increasing minimum wage without reducing taxes may cause inflation in some sectors (where worker morale and productivity gains don't exceed increased wages). Reducing tax will work to offset wage increases so costs and profit margins to businesses stay the same. Additional income amongst the low paid won't drive inflation for a long time; in the short-medium term extra income will go paying off debt, being able to eat AND turn heating on, and being able to afford to live in your own room rather than sharing, etc. Longer term it is the role of the central bank to use monetary policy to control inflation. In this scenario, I'd expect interest rates to rise slowly to ~3pc in ten years to keep inflation on the 2.5pc target set by Government.

I support the current ruling that classifies Uber, Deliveroo, and Hermes drivers as employees due to the current T&Cs of working for them. IF these companies did truly allow flexible working and people to work as freelancers (work when they want, take the jobs they want, work for rivals as well, etc) then fine yes, the Uber HQ of coders would pay tax where they are based, the individual freelancers would not have to pay corp tax.

As we approach the EU deadline for the UK to decide whether or not to pay our legally obliged amount, with no sign that May and her Brexit team are close to doing that I feel it is time to resurrect this thread.